Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MIT Scheme on Apple Silicon

kennethfriedman.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 87 posts

Re: MIT Scheme on Apple Silicon

#61

Post by saagarjha »

andrewxdiamond wrote: post #41
maratc wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of the programs in the world are written in Javascript, and there's no way for you to "run" them if by that you mean "natively".

> The vast majority of the programs in the world are written in Javascript Where is this coming from? What about the literal thousands and thousands of programs on your OS right now? Or the thousands of systems that power large corporations that predate JavaScript popularity? Sure the language is popular right now, but software development has a much longer history than the last 10 years

They’re talking about the web.

Re: MIT Scheme on Apple Silicon

#62

Post by saagarjha »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #52
alwillis wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And for Apple, Rosetta 2 was developed in-house and doesn't require continuous licensing fees to keep around (not that I'm particularly sympathetic to Apple's pocketbook.) I don't think any of those things matter; Apple will stop supporting Rosetta 2 as quickly as they can. They announced the transition to Apple Silicon will be two years and unless something unforeseen happens, that's what it's going to be. I suspect…

> A great example is 32-bit apps, where Apple gave something like an 8-year heads-up that 32-bit apps were going away, which happened a few years ago but it's not hard to find threads on HN where people are still complaining about it. But actually, I personally believe that the actual reason Apple killed 32bit support was because they didn't want to build it into Rosetta. (And they didn't want Intel computers to be a…

> But actually, I personally believe that the actual reason Apple killed 32bit support was because they didn't want to build it into Rosetta.

Rosetta 2 contains functionality to correctly emulate 32-bit Intel code.

Re: MIT Scheme on Apple Silicon

#63

Post by rjsw »

smoldesu wrote: post #15
moron4hire wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not a stretch at all. This is just nerd contrarianism.

Well, let's see. Is there a way for me to run a Java program as native machine code? Or is the code that I'm executing still a runtime that interprets a program?

> Is there a way for me to run a Java program as native machine code?

Yes [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Compiler_for_Java

Re: MIT Scheme on Apple Silicon

#65

Post by ofrzeta »

nneonneo wrote: post #36

Both of the compilation errors identified in this article were just fixed in the master branch of MIT/GNU Scheme five hours ago: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/mit-scheme.git/commit/?id=... , https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/mit-scheme.git/commit/?id=... . So, if you grab the current master branch, it should just build for x86 without any fixes needed.

Ok, but how do you compile it? When you pull the repo you need to run autoconf to create the configure script but that tells me "This script needs an existing MIT/GNU Scheme installation to function".

Re: MIT Scheme on Apple Silicon

#66

Post by mark_l_watson »

bigdict wrote: post #47
mark_l_watson wrote: post #22

I got MIT Scheme running on my M1 MacBook Pro about 6 months ago when I bought the book "Software Design for Flexibility" and although I can't find my notes for that, I think I remember building from source natively, not via Rosetta - but I may remember incorrectly. I also remember it taking a while to get Gerbil Scheme running on M1.

How did you like the book?

I like it, but I have only worked about 1/3 of the way through it.

Re: MIT Scheme on Apple Silicon

#68

Post by Wowfunhappy »

saagarjha wrote: post #62
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A great example is 32-bit apps, where Apple gave something like an 8-year heads-up that 32-bit apps were going away, which happened a few years ago but it's not hard to find threads on HN where people are still complaining about it. But actually, I personally believe that the actual reason Apple killed 32bit support was because they didn't want to build it into Rosetta. (And they didn't want Intel computers to be a…

> But actually, I personally believe that the actual reason Apple killed 32bit support was because they didn't want to build it into Rosetta. Rosetta 2 contains functionality to correctly emulate 32-bit Intel code.

It's not the 32 bit code though, it's all the old libraries (carbon) which happen to also be 32 bit.

Re: MIT Scheme on Apple Silicon

#70

Post by olliej »

saagarjha wrote: post #60
my123 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pointer authentication isn’t in 3rd party processes though Still isn’t, because the arm64e ABI isn’t stable. As such, any binaries not bundled with the OS, including Apple applications, use the arm64 ABI without pointer authentication. You can use -arm64e_preview_abi as a boot argument to enable arm64e support for non-OS bundled processes. Note that however the arm64e binaries that you compile might not work on fut…

System libraries are more than happy to use some parts of pointer authentication, such as return address signing.

System libraries use the full pointer authentication schema, because they’re updated as a whole with the entire system, so ABI changes don’t impact them (as much).
Post reply on HN